Hi Jouni,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > <in a chair mode> > > This thread is starting to sound like a broken record. We are chartered to > have the maintenance responsibility of Mobile IPv6 protocol family. Once the > chairs see absence of "maintenance oriented" documents that responsibility > will be terminated. Till then, if someone does not like Mobile IPv6 protocol > family work being done - just defer contributing. That's the natural way of > aging out topics in IETF. Enough of this for now! > > Another data point to add here. To my (probably misguided?) understanding > PMIP6 has more live deployments than MIP6 today. My understanding is that > there are still operators running PMIP6 based networks and some vendors > developing networking gear with PMIP6 support. > This paragraph conflicts the first one, now you are opening another discussion point. Can you please kindly be more specific? Respectfully yours, Behcet > - Jouni > > > 1/11/2016, 9:47 AM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti: >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Thierry Ernst <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The purpose of conference papers is to do research, so I don’t see how >>> conferences papers would help to do … maintenance of IETF RFCs. In addition >>> to bug fixes, MIPv6 and NEMO need to be progressed in the IETF hierarchy of >>> standards. There are issues and options to be discussed, probably even >>> extensions; a WG must host such work. My take is that dmm is the right >>> candidate WG for this to happen. >>> >> >> I still don't see any statements from you on the real need or use. You >> talk as if even a BoF is needed, if yes that's what you should go for. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >>> Regards, >>> Thierry Ernst. >>> >>> >>>> Le 11 janv. 2016 à 17:35, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Thierry Ernst <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What are protocols you think no one uses ? >>>>> >>>>> MIPv6 and NEMOv6 needs maintenance, and probably more than than >>>>> maintenance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thierry, I meant PMIPv6 which was designed for operator networks. >>>> >>>> For MIPv6/NEMOv6, I think in Europe, some research based use is >>>> happening, to my knowledge at a very small scale. >>>> mip6 WG has been closed long time ago. >>>> I wish it were still open, that would be like in good old days. >>>> >>>> So conference papers and ISE is still my recipe. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Thierry Ernst. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 20:48, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jouni.nosmap <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well one can always pursue ISE/AD sponsored track if one so feels >>>>>>> like. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just saying there are options.. if one desires to go through the WG >>>>>>> process DMM has provisions for Mobile IPv6 protocol family maintenance >>>>>>> work. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I started this thread by stating that: >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that no one >>>>>> uses? >>>>>> For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find their places in >>>>>> the conferences or journals. >>>>>> >>>>>> No one objected to the first point. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what is the justification for maintenance? As I said before, >>>>>> charter items can be changed or they do not have to be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> kirjoitti 8.1.2016 kello >>>>>>>> 9.15: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jouni Korhonen >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As Sri pointed out DMM is OK to work on "maintenance-oriented >>>>>>>>> extensions of >>>>>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol family". So this is likely the venue >>>>>>>>> within IETF. >>>>>>>>> Mobile IPv4 as such has no place here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not ISE? For both MIPv6 and MIPv4. >>>>>>>> Of course you may not be able modify existing RFCs but just write it >>>>>>>> as a new draft and do not bother dmm where future protocol work is >>>>>>>> supposed to be done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1/8/2016, 6:50 AM, Thierry Ernst kirjoitti: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex, all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My understanding of what Jouni wrote is that it’s fine to work on >>>>>>>>>> MIP6 >>>>>>>>>> improvement, but the MIP4 can live its life as is, to which I >>>>>>>>>> totally agree. >>>>>>>>>> And I also agree with Alex that we need to fix bugs in MIP6 (and >>>>>>>>>> the related >>>>>>>>>> suite, in particular NEMO) and progress them in the standard >>>>>>>>>> track. It has >>>>>>>>>> been too long since we last work on those and now it is certainly >>>>>>>>>> right to >>>>>>>>>> do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, the question is if DMM is the right place or not to do the >>>>>>>>>> work, if >>>>>>>>>> not I would like to hear about alternatives within the IETF. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Thierry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 13:54, Alexandre Petrescu >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 22/12/2015 04:56, Jouni a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Behcet, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your constructive comments. I believe academic >>>>>>>>>>>> conferences/journals are not appropriate venues for PMIPv6/MIPv6 >>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance since these protocol families are already past their >>>>>>>>>>>> prime time as “hot research topics". Looking at the existing >>>>>>>>>>>> charter >>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot find too much love towards anything IPv4 so I think we >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> let MIPv4 finally rest in peace. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jouni I can agree with you in general. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But let me suggest that MIPv4 and MIPv6 are two implementations >>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>> important in some places including where I work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are no longer 'hot' as you say, but there are certainly >>>>>>>>>>> protocol and >>>>>>>>>>> implementation bugs which need correction. Actually some of the >>>>>>>>>>> corrections >>>>>>>>>>> have already been applied but are not reflected in RFCs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a feeling of frustration if implementations >>>>>>>>>>> thrive >>>>>>>>>>> where WG cares little. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <provocative> a widespread implementation of MIP6 is still bugged >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> does not respect the MIPv6 RFC - do you want that discussed >>>>>>>>>>> publicly?</provocative>. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Dec 2015, at 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me ask what is the point in maintaining the protocols that >>>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>>> one uses? For academic purposes? If yes, then they should find >>>>>>>>>>>>> their places in the conferences or journals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, mip4 WG has been closed. So is dmm going to maintain mip4 >>>>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>> well? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Behcet >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jouni, all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm already late, I just wanted to express my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-adoption call to the three drafts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 08:32 -0800, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WG adoption call for all three I-Ds have completed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-03 draft-seite-dmm-rg-multihoming-02 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The adoption for the first two was unanimous. The last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (draft-seita- *) received few concerns but the number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supporters was enough to convince the chairs there is enough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interest and support to work on it. The chairs encourage the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of draft-seite-* to pay close attention and work out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concerns raised during the adoption call. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the I-D authors. Please, submit draft-ietf-*-00 versions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the documents as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
